Corcoran v. City of Chicago
27 N.E.2d 451, 373 Ill. 567 (1940)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute granting an appellate court the power to review evidence and reverse a jury's verdict as being against the manifest weight of the evidence does not violate the constitutional right to a trial by jury, as this power was part of the common law system that the constitution preserves.
Facts:
- John F. Corcoran was riding in an automobile on a street in the city of Chicago.
- Corcoran alleged that the street was in an unsafe condition for travel due to depressions, obstructions, holes, and uneven places.
- As a result of the alleged street conditions, the automobile in which Corcoran was riding overturned.
- Corcoran sustained personal injuries from the vehicle overturning.
- There was conflicting evidence presented as to the actual condition of the street; some evidence supported Corcoran's claim of negligence, while other evidence indicated the street was in a reasonably good state of repair.
Procedural Posture:
- John F. Corcoran sued the city of Chicago in the superior court of Cook County (trial court) for personal injuries.
- A jury trial resulted in a verdict for Corcoran in the amount of $5,000.
- The trial court overruled the city of Chicago's motion for a new trial and entered judgment on the verdict.
- The city of Chicago, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Appellate Court for the First District.
- The Appellate Court found the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, reversed the judgment, and remanded the cause for a new trial.
- On Corcoran's motion, the Appellate Court struck the remanding portion of its order to make the judgment final and appealable.
- Corcoran, as plaintiff in error, sought review from the Supreme Court of Illinois via a common law writ of error, challenging the constitutionality of the statute under which the Appellate Court acted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a statute that grants an appellate court the power to review evidence and reverse a jury's verdict as being against the manifest weight of the evidence violate the constitutional right to a trial by jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Murphy
No. A statute allowing an appellate court to reverse a jury verdict as against the manifest weight of the evidence is not unconstitutional, as it is consistent with the right to a jury trial as understood at common law. The court reasoned that the right to a trial by jury guaranteed by the Illinois constitution is the same right that existed at common law. Historically, under the English common law system, courts exercising appellate jurisdiction (such as the court en banc at Westminster) had the authority to review the record of a trial and grant a new trial if the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. This review was part of the system that the framers of the constitution intended to preserve. The court further noted that an Illinois statute has authorized this form of appellate review since 1837. This power does not usurp the jury's function because the appellate court does not substitute its own factual finding but rather remands the case for a new trial before another jury, thus serving as a necessary check to ensure justice is done.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the authority of appellate courts to act as a check on jury verdicts that are factually unsupportable. It clarifies that the constitutional right to a jury trial is not absolute and does not insulate a verdict from all factual review. The court's ruling rests on a deep historical analysis of common law, establishing that appellate review of facts for the purpose of ordering a new trial was an integral part of the justice system the constitution was designed to protect. This holding distinguishes between the permissible act of reversing and remanding for a new trial versus the potentially unconstitutional act of an appellate court reversing and entering a contrary judgment based on its own finding of fact.
